I wise likewise told by my advisor that any sort of post-degree work in History would be futile. My chance of getting hired as "a white male" in a history department was not good, and frankly "there is not a lot of future in history" (which we laughed at).
Let's hold on a sec because the discussion glossed over this. Are we all just accepting that it's normal for it to be harder for you to get a job because of your skin and gender? That's pretty outrageous and sad.
The thing about reverse discrimination that makes it particularly egregious is that on some level people view it as more socially acceptable than traditional discrimination. Discrimination based on superficial characteristics is always, and equally wrong in all cases. Furthermore, reverse discrimination actually perpetuates the very rift that its proponents decry.
I don't want to argue the merits, but I do want to point out where the argument is. What you consider "reverse discrimination" I consider attempts to change the result of centuries of oppression. Such attempts take many forms. I do not think such attempts perpetuates the problem, but rather are attempts to rectify it.
Again, I'm not trying to argue this on its merits. I just was surprised by your wording, because I got the impression that you took the matter as settled, when it is very contested.
what you fail to realize is that this is manifestly a contradiction: by definition if it were more socially acceptable to discriminate against "white males" then white males would be the marginalized class. that's why claims like this are farcical; of course more people are fine discriminating against black people and women!
Futile is much too strong of a word. I'm a white male, got a PhD in history, and ended up getting a good TT job in my first year on the market. Was I lucky? Undoubtedly. But some of the pessimism about history phds really is unwarranted in my view, for the reason the author mentions toward the end. I think the field has a strong future personally. It is just looking like the 80s through '00s was an enrollment high point. Doesn't mean there are no jobs left, or good work isn't being done.
On the other hand, I fully concede that, for my history and CS dual major students, I'd agree that it's be a bad idea to get a PhD in history if you have the skills and inclination to get a CS degree or a job at FB/Google/etc instead.
Objectively speaking, if you spend five to six figures on a degree with a 10% chance of landing a job through it, that's not an attractive proposition.
"Futile" may be the wrong word, a better word would be "foolish".
Exactly, it's a common misconception that people go into debts for PhDs. The stipends are low, but being paid to learn, travel and do research is not a bad choice for some people.
